I'm [sic] of this

So I'm writing a demurrer and just got the uncontrollable urge to cite an error-containing excerpt from the complaint just so I can throw in a [sic]. It's a cheap little poke into opposing counsel that feels good when executed to perfection. The style manuals have their own rules on [sic]. Here's my perspective as a litigator:

1. Only use [sic] when noting a typographical error. I've seen people use it when they substantively disagree with the language. In my view, that's just weird, lazy, and wrong.
2. Be sure it's actually a [sic]! You look way sillier for thinking a non-mistake is a mistake, than for declining to point out someone else's mistake.
3. If you're gonna throw out a slightly gratuitous [sic] you better be damn sure your own papers in that case are air tight.
   
4. Unless you're trying to lose, never use [sic] when quoting a court, especially your court. In that case, I would just use empty brackets -- or a convenient ellipses -- where the court's error would be.
5. [Sic]'s are distracting. They're tangential to whatever point you're making. (They simply show the reader that the mistake is not your own.) Also, all those brackets are hard on the eyes and further distract the reader.
   
6. [Sic]'s may be a sign you're quoting too much. I paraphrase as much as I can. Overquoting is lazy writing. Quotes are less customized (read, "favorable") to your case. And just as brackets are distracting, so are " "'s everywhere. Don't even get me started on block quotes....
7. So, ideally, you should only [sic] when there is an actual reason to quote that language. Executed to perfection is when a [sic] dutifully points out that key language in the opponent's papers has a typo. This advances your client's interests by subtly showing the court that the other lawyer is sloppy -- even in connection with crucial language. And it's a poke.

Okay, back to the demurrer. Pursuant to item #7 above, I'm gonna show some self restraint and not call out plaintiff's council [sic] for his [sic].